Here I will post some short pieces on Sarala Mahabharata. Sarala Das is known as the "aadikavi" (the first poet) of Oriya Literature. He lived and wrote in the 15th Century. Mahabharat is his magnum opus. The episodes in Sarala's Mahabharat are significantly different from those in Vyasa's (Sanskrit) Mahabharat.

Thursday, August 6, 2015

NAKULA

Sarala’ Nakula almost always
remained in shadow, hardly ever came into lime light. He was noble and tried to
live a life of virtue, was an accomplished warrior, although in the Kurukshetra
War he didn’t do anything that was remarkable and memorable. He once held the
earth on the tip of his spear so that the great naga, Vasuki, on whose
head it rested, could participate in Yudhisthira’s rajaswiya jajna, but
war is war; the battlefield is the place where reputation is made and war
heroes are born. With Krishna of course it is different. How often in our
puranic literature has withdrawal from the battlefield has been celebrated? And
spoken of so endearingly? Nakula had a special gift, like his brother Sahadeva.
He knew how to relate to animals, especially horses. But he suffers in
comparison; how impressive is this knowledge in comparison with the knowledge
of the past and the future! With Govinda it is different though. He related to
the cows in our puranic literature as none else, mortal or immortal and this
has been the theme of numerous beautiful and touching songs and stories in all
our languages over centuries. Nakula was very handsome and was very proud of his
looks. But his handsomeness didn’t make him special in Draupadi’s eyes. If he
won other hearts, Sarala says nothing about it. He took particular care to look
handsome and often indulged in eloquent self-praise about his handsomeness. For
Yudhisthira, the man of dharma, all this constituted his single greatest moral
flaw. Self-praise was sin in terms of the moral code of those days, but for
Yudhisthira, self-praise in even thought was no less sinful.

There is no evidence in Sarala’s
narrative to suggest that Kunti distinguished between her children and Madri’s
children. She never forgot that they had lost their mother and she became
mother to them. Of the five brothers she was particularly fond of Sahadeva,
probably because he was the youngest. When she joined her brother-in-law
Dhritarashtra and sister-in-law Gandhari for vanaprastha, she told Draupadi to
take care of him, concerned that he was the one son of hers who needed to be
taken care of when she was gone. Ironically, the distinction was made by
Yudhisthira, who was affectionate and generous to all and had no favourites.

It was a very difficult situation. All
his brothers were lying dead in front of him and Dharma in disguise offered to
restore one of them to life. Who would he choose, he asked the eldest Pandava,
whose wisdom and sense of discrimination had pleased him. Nakula, said the son
of Dharma. But why Nakula? Since the eldest son of Kunti was alive, the eldest
son of Madri should be alive too, was Yudhisthira’s answer. So pleased with his
commitment to dharma was the god that he restored all his brothers to life. If Kunti-
Madri or mother-younger mother distinction was made here in explicit terms for
the first time in Sarala Mahabharata, it was only for reasons of dharma.

It was made again in the
narrative, this time, ironically, by Nakula and there was no consideration of
dharma here. And to my mind this is where this character’s individuality found
its best expression. What he did was unpredictable. Krishna was going to king Duryodhana
as Yudhisthira’s emissary to persuade him to choose peace over a fratricidal war;
all he wanted from him was just one village for the Pandavas. Without telling
him, Krishna decided to ask every Pandava brother and Draupadi and Kunti as
well, about Yudhisthira’s peace initiative. One village would not be
sufficient, said Bhima. He requested Krishna to ask for one village for
himself. Arjuna did the same. Nakula said he wanted two, one for himself and
one for Sahadeva. As his elder brother he was trying to take care of his
younger brother’s interests; he wasn’t sure whether his brother would have the
sense to ask a village for himself. His attitude to Sahadeva is reminiscent of
Kunti’s towards him.

He told Krishna that so far
everything had been fine, but who knew whether Kunti’s sons’ attitude would not
change after the war was over and the Kauravas eliminated. Victory and prosperity
changes people, the togetherness at the time of suffering is forgotten. After
all, they were Madri’s sons, so he was worried that they might not share their prosperity
with them. No one ever knew what he told Krishna.

Have no doubt about Nakula’s
commitment to Yudhisthira. It was as strong as Bhima’s and Arjuna’s. As for
Sahadeva, his story can wait for some other day. Only this much for now: he too
was deeply committed to Yudhisthira, but if this commitment of his clashed with
the cosmic design, about which he was aware, he would choose to work for the
latter. Returning to Nakula, the poet does not blame him for his suspicion. He
only shows that there was a distinct ordinariness to this character as well.

Sarala also shows how deeply
ingrained in the children is the mother-younger mother distinction. Even in the
most blessed of situations, it does not disappear. Only Rama, the noblest among
gods, humans, and all the rest, was the exception. Nakula knew about what choice
Yudhisthira had made when he had to decide which of his brothers he wanted
restored to life. But that couldn’t reassure him. Or was he was apprehensive
about how much control over his own brothers would Yudhisthira have after
becoming king?